Delhi High Court Bench recuses from hearing Habeas Corpus plea of Delhi Riots accused Gulfisha Fatima citing heckling by lawyer Mehmood Pracha

A Delhi High Court Bench on Monday recused from hearing a Habeas Corpus petition filed for release of Delhi Riots accused Gulfisha Fatima, citing heckling by petitioner's counsel Mehmood Pracha [Gulfisha Fatima Versus State]..A Division Bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that Pracha, instead of addressing the court on the merits of the matter, took recourse to heckling and to facts not mentioned in the petition. "Instead of addressing us on merits, Mr. Pracha is taking recourse to heckling and to facts not in the petition. List before another Bench on July 9," the Court ordered. Student activist Fatima was arrested and charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), in connection with the Delhi Riots case.A Habeas Corpus petition filed on her behalf earlier had been dismissed by the Delhi High Court and the appeal filed before the Supreme Court against the same was later withdrawn. Appearing on behalf of Gulfisha, advocate Mehmood Pracha apprised the Court that the present case dealt with the question of whether or not a judge can extend remand.Advocate Amit Mahajan appearing on behalf of the State opposed the maintainability of the petition. At this point Justice Siddharth Mridul interjected and asked if another Habeas Corpus petition can be filed at all upon withdrawal of the earlier one."We don't know what prompted you to withdraw your SLP. You then carried a Habeas Corpus to the Supreme Court and then came back filed another Habeas Corpus in the High Court. Why does a fresh Habeas Corpus lie here?"Pracha responded to the same by placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Bikramjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab.He said that the law of Habeas Corpus is crystal clear and that according to the Bikramjit judgement, the petitioner's custody became illegal in August itself. "Habeas corpus is qua custody of the prisoner," Pracha added.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani asked whether or not the petitioner has already exhausted the remedy of Habeas Corpus. "Court's power to extend remand can't do that but what about the earlier orders made? How would you challenge them?" Have you not exhausted your remedies in respect of the prayer made?"Pracha responded by informing him that custody of the petitioner had been extended by the Sessions Judge."If custody is extended, you tell the Sessions judge you cannot extend it next time. Why are you here before us?" Justice Bhambani demanded. Justice Bhambani reiterated that the apex court's judgement will not be applicable in this case and once there is a remand order by a court of law, it cannot be set aside by a Habeas Corpus petition. "Once there is a remand order, it cannot be set aside in a Habeas Corpus case. The same principle was held in Rahul Modi's case. Now you are asking us to apply the same prayer in respect of the same person. You cannot throw other principles and procedures. You may have a case somewhere else but not here," Justice Bhambani said.Justice Mridul in agreement with this also pointed out that the Court did not agree with Pracha's view of the law. "When it's not maintainable, it's not maintainable," he said. Upon Justice Bhambhani enquiring with Pracha about how long the remand was extended for, he was met with the response, "I don't know. No one is telling me."The Court eventually refused to hear the matter further and recused from the plea saying that Pracha was resorting to heckling. The matter will now be heard on July 9, 2021 by another Bench. Advocate Amit Mahajan appeared for State while advocate Mehmood Pracha appeared for the petitioner. .Read full order here: